"Mr. Speaker, we are here now in chapter 11. Members of
Congress are official trustees presiding over the greatest reorganization of any bankrupt entity in world history, the U.S. Government"

Senator
James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the House
United States Congressional Record March 17, 1993
Vol. #33, page H-1303

"I
have never seen more Senators express discontent with their jobs ...
we have been accomplices to doing something terrible and unforgivable
to this wonderful country ... we have given our children a legacy of
bankruptcy. We have defrauded our country to get ourselves elected."

John Danforth, Republican Senator from Missouri, in an interview
in The Arizona Republic on April 22, 1992

We
are bankrupted. We are insolvent on every level of our national life,whether
it is corporate, whether it is just plain you and I out therewith the life of
debt that we have all piled up, private debt, credit cardsand what not, or
whether it is the government. We are insolvent.How long will it take before
that nasty Mega-truth is conveyed?

Senator
Henry Gonzalez (Texas)speaking on"NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL THIEVERY IN HIGH PLACES"United States Congressional Record May 4, 1992, page H 2891,

A
Special Report on the
National Emergency
in the United States of America

We are going to begin with a series of
documents which are representative (Exhibits 1 through 7), of the documents contained in
this Report. We will be quoting from, in many cases, reports, Senate and Congressional
reports, hearings before National Emergency Committees, Presidential Papers, Statutes at
Large, and the United States Code.

Exhibit 8 is taken from a book written by
Swisher called Constitutional Development. Let's read the first paragraph. It says,

"We may well wonder in
view of the precedents now established," said Charles E. Hughes, (Supreme Court
Justice) in 1920, "whether constitutional government as heretofore maintained in this
Republic could survive another great war even victoriously waged."

How could that happen? Surely, if we go out
and fight a war and win it, we'd have to end up stronger than the day we started, wouldn't
we? Justice Hughes goes on to say,

"The conflict known as
the World War had ended as far as military hostilities were concerned, but was not yet
officially terminated. Most of the war statutes were still in effect, many of the
emergency organizations were still in operation."

What is this man talking about when he
speaks of "war statutes in effect and emergency organizations still in
operation"?

"I think of all the damnable heresies that
have ever been suggested in connection with the Constitution, the doctrine of emergency is
the worst. It means that when Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution.
This means its death. It is the very doctrine that the German chancellor is invoking today
in the dying hours of the parliamentary body of the German republic, namely, that because
of an emergency, it should grant to the German chancellor absolute power to pass any law,
even though the law contradicts the Constitution of the German republic. Chancellor Hitler
is at least frank about it. We pay the Constitution lip-service, but the result is the
same."

Congressman Beck is saying that, of all the
damnable heresies that ever existed, this doctrine of emergency has got to be the worst,
because once Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution. He goes on to say,

"But the Constitution of
the United States, as a restraining influence in keeping the federal government within the
carefully prescribed channels of power, is moribund, if not dead. We are witnessing its
death-agonies, for when this bill becomes a law, if unhappily it becomes a law, there is
no longer any workable Constitution to keep the Congress within the limits of its
Constitutional powers."

What bill is Congressman
Beck talking about? In 1933, "the House passed the Farm Bill by a vote of more than
three to one." Again, we see the doctrine of emergency. Once an emergency is
declared, there is no Constitution.

The cause and effect of the doctrine of
emergency is the subject of this Report.

In 1973, in Senate Report
93-549 (Exhibit 10), the first sentence reads,

"Since March the 9th, 1933, the
United States has been in a state of declared national emergency."

Let's go back to Exhibit 9 just before this.
What did that say? It says that if a national emergency is declared, there is no
Constitution. Now, let us return to Exhibit 10. Since March the 9th of 1933, the United
States has been, in fact, in a state of declared national emergency.

Referring to the middle of this exhibit:

"This vast range of powers, taken
together, confer enough authority to rule the country without reference to normal
constitutional processes. Under the powers delegated by these statutes, the President may:
seize property; organize and control the means of production; seize commodities; assign
military forces abroad; institute martial law; seize and control all transportation and
communication; regulate the operation of private enterprise; restrict travel; and, in a
plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American citizens"

and this situation
has continued uninterrupted since March the 9th of 1933.

In the introduction to Senate Report 93-549
(Exhibit 11):

"A majority of the people of the
United States have lived all their lives under emergency rule."

Remember, this report was produced in 1973.
The introduction goes on to say:

"For 40 years, freedoms and
governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have, in varying degrees, been
abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency."

The introduction continues:

"And, in the United
States, actions taken by the government in times of great crisis have -- from, at least,
the Civil War -- in important ways shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent state of
national emergency."

How many people were taught that in school?
How could it possibly be that something which could suspend our Constitution would not be
taught in school? Amazing, isn't it?

Where does this (Exhibit 12) come from? Is
it possible that, in our Constitution, there could be some section which could contemplate
what these previous documents are referring to? In Article 1, Section 9 of the
Constitution of the United States of America, we find the following words:

"The privilege of the Writ of Habeas
Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion, the public
Safety may require it."

Habeas Corpus - the Great Writ of Liberty.
This is the writ which guarantees that the government cannot charge us and hold us with
any crime, unless they follow the procedure of due process of law. This writ also says, in
effect, that the privilege of due process of law cannot be suspended, and that the
government cannot not operate its arbitrary prerogative power against We the People. But
we see that the great Writ of Liberty can, in fact, under the Constitution, be suspended
when an invasion or a rebellion necessitates it.

In the 5th Amendment to the Constitution
(Exhibit 13), it says:

"No person shall be held to
answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment
of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia,
when in actual service in time of War or public danger...".

We reserved the charging power for
ourselves, didn't we? We didn't give that power to the government. And we also said that
the government would be powerless to charge one of the citizens or one of the peoples of
the United States with a crime unless We, the People, through our grand jury, orders it to
do so through an indictment or a presentment. And if We, the People, don't order it, the
government cannot do it. If it tried to do it, we would simply follow the Writ of Habeas
Corpus, and they would have to release us, wouldn't they? They could not hold us.

But let us recall that, in Exhibit 13, it
says:

"except in cases arising in
the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in times of War or
public danger..."

We can see here that the framers of the
Constitution were already contemplating times when there would be conditions under which
it might be necessary to suspend the guarantees of the Constitution.

Also from Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 14),
and remember that our congressmen wrote these reports and these documents and they're
talking about these emergency powers and they say:

"They are quite careful and
restrictive on the power, but the power to suspend is specifically contemplated by the
Constitution in the Writ of Habeas Corpus."

Now, this is well known. This is not a
concept that was not known to rulers for many, many years. The concepts of constitutional
dictatorship went clear back to the Roman Republic. And there, it was determined that, in
times of dire emergencies, yes, the constitution and the rights of the people could be
suspended, temporarily, until the crisis, whatever its nature, could be resolved.

But once it was done, the Constitution,was
to be returned to its peacetime position of authority. In France, the situation under
which the constitution could be suspended is called the State of Siege. In Great Britain,
it's called the Defense of the Realm Acts. In Germany, in which Hitler became a dictator,
it was simply called Article 48. In the United States, it is called the War Powers.

If that was, in fact, the case, and we are
under a war emergency in this country, then there should be evidence of that war emergency
in the current law that exists today. That means we should be able to go to the federal
code known as the USC or United States Code, and find that statute, that law, in
existence. And if we went to the library today and picked up a copy of 12 USC and went to
Section 95 (b) (Exhibit 15), we will find a law which states:

"The actions, regulations, rules,
licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or
issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March
the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the
Act of October 6th, 1917, as amended [12 USCS Sec. 95a], are hereby approved and
confirmed. (Mar. 9, 1933, c. 1, Title 1, Sec. 1, 48 Stat. 1.)".

Now, what does this mean? It means that
everything the President or the Secretary of the Treasury has done since March the 4th of
1933, or anything that the President or the Secretary of the Treasury is hereafter going
to do, is automatically approved and confirmed. Referring back to Exhibit 10, let us
remember that, according to the Congressional Record of 1973, the United States has been
in a state of national emergency since 1933. Then we realize that 12 USC, Section 95 (b)
is current law. This is the law that exists over this United States right this moment.

If that be the case, let us see if we can
understand what is being said here. As every action, rule or law put into effect by the
President or the Secretary of the Treasury since March the 4th of 1933 has or will be
confirmed and approved, let us determine the significance of that date in history. What
happened on March the 4th of 1933?

On March the 4th of 1933, Franklin Delano
Roosevelt was inaugurated as President of the United States. Referring to his inaugural
address, which was given at a time when the country was in the throes of the Great
Depression, we read (Exhibit 16):

"I am prepared under my
constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a
stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may
build out of its experience and wisdom, I shall seek, within my constitutional authority,
to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of
these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall
not evade the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress
for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis -- broad
Executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be
given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe."

On March the 4th, 1933, at his inaugural,
President Roosevelt was saying that he was going to ask Congress for the extraordinary
authority available to him under the War Powers Act. Let's see if he got it.

On March the 5th, President Roosevelt asked
for a special and extraordinary session of Congress in Proclamation 2038. He called for
the special session of Congress to meet on March the 9th at noon. And at that Congress, he
presented a bill, an Act, to provide for
relief in the existing national emergency in banking and for other purposes.

In the enabling portion of that Act (Exhibit
17), it states:

"Be it enacted by the
Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress
assembled, That the Congress hereby declares that a serious emergency exists and that it
is imperatively necessary speedily to put into effect remedies of uniform national
application."

What is the concept of the rule of
necessity, referred to in the enabling portion of the Act as "imperatively necessary
speedily"? The rule of necessity is a rule of law which states that necessity knows
no law. A good example of the rule of necessity would be the concept of self-defense. The
law says, "Thou shalt not kill". But also know that, if you are in dire danger,
in danger of losing your life, then you have the absolute right of self-defense. You have
the right to kill to protect your own life. That is the ultimate rule of necessity.

Thus we see that the rule of necessity
overrides all other law, and, in fact, allows one to do that which would normally be
against the law. So it is reasonable to assume that the wording of the enabling portion of
the Act of March 9, 1933, is an indication that what follows is something which will
probably be against the law. It will probably be against the Constitution of the United
States, or it would not require that the rule of necessity be invoked to enact it.

In the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), it
further states in Title 1, Section 1:

"The actions, regulations, rules,
licenses, orders and proclamations heretofore or hereafter taken, promulgated, made, or
issued by the President of the United States or the Secretary of the Treasury since March
the 4th, 1933, pursuant to the authority conferred by subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the
Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, are hereby approved and confirmed."

Where have we read those words before?

This is the exact same wording as is found
(Exhibit 15) today in Title 12, USC 95 (b). The language in Title 12, USC 95 (b) is
exactly the same as that found in the Act of March 9, 1933, Chapter 1, Title 1, Section
48, Statute 1. The Act of March 9, 1933, is still in full force and effect today. We are
still under the Rule of Necessity. We are still in a declared state of national emergency,
a state of emergency which has existed, uninterrupted, since 1933, or for over sixty
years.

As you may remember, the authority to do
this is conferred by Subsection (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6, 1917, as
amended. What was the authority which was used to declare and enact the emergency in this
Act? If we look at the Act of October 6, 1917 (Exhibit 18), we see that at the top
right-hand part of the page, it states that this was:

"An Act To define,
regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.

By the year 1917, the United States was
involved in World War I; at that point, it was recognized that there were probably enemies
of the United States, or allies of enemies of the United States, living within the
continental borders of our nation in a time of war.

Therefore, Congress passed this Act which
identified who could be declared enemies of the United States, and, in this Act, we gave
the government total authority over those enemies to do with as it saw fit. We also see,
however, in Section 2, Subdivision (c) in the middle, and again at the bottom of the page:

other than citizens of the
United States."

The Act specifically excluded citizens of
the United States, because we realized in 1917 that the citizens of the United States were
not enemies. Thus, we were excluded from the war powers over enemies in this Act.

Section 5 (b) of the same Act (Exhibit 19),
states:

"That the President may
investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe,
by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, export or
earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, transfers of credit in any form
(other than credits relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the
United States)".

Again, we see here that citizens, and the
transactions of citizens made wholly within the United States, were specifically excluded
from the war powers of this Act. We, the People, were not enemies of our country;
therefore, the government did not have total authority over us as they were given over our
enemies.

It is important to draw attention again to
the fact that citizens of the United States in October, 1917, were not called enemies.
Consequently the government, under the war powers of this Act, did not have authority over
us; we were still protected by the Constitution. Granted, over enemies of this nation, the
government was empowered to do anything it deemed necessary, but not over us. The
distinction made between enemies of the United States and citizens of the United States
will become crucial later on.

In Section 2 of the Act of
March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 17), "Subdivision (b) of Section 5 of the Act of October 6,
1917 (40 Stat. L. 411), as amended, is hereby amended to read as follows;

So we see that they are now going to amend
Section 5 (b). Now let's see how it reads after it's amended. The amended version of
Section 5 (b) reads (emphasis is ours):

"During time of war or
during any other period of national emergency declared by the President, the President
may, through any agency that he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate, or
prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe, by means of licenses or
otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit between or payments
by banking institutions as defined by the President and export, hoarding, melting, or
earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, by any person within the United
States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

What just happened? At as far as commercial,
monetary or business transactions were concerned, the people of the United States were no
longer differentiated from any other enemy of the United States. We had lost that crucial
distinction. Comparing Exhibit 17 with Exhibit 19, we can see that the phrase which
excluded transactions executed wholly within the United States has been removed from the
amended version of Section 5 (b) of the Act of March 9, 1933, Section 2, and replaced with
"by any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction
thereof'. All monetary transactions, whether domestic or international in scope, were now
placed at the whim of the President of the United States through the authority given to
him by the Trading with the enemy Act.

To summarize this critical point: On October
the 6th of 1917, at the beginning of America's involvement in World War 1, Congress passed
a Trading with the enemy Act empowering the government to take control over any and all
commercial, monetary or business transactions conducted by enemies or allies of enemies
within our continental borders. That Act also defined the term "enemy" and
excluded from that definition citizens of the United States.

In Section 5 (b) of this Act, we see that
the President was given unlimited authority to control the commercial transactions of
defined enemies, but we see that credits relating solely to transactions executed wholly
within the United States were excluded from that controlling authority. As transactions
wholly domestic in nature were excluded from authority, the government had no
extraordinary control over the daily business conducted by the citizens of the United
States, because we were certainly not enemies.

Citizens of the United States were not
enemies of their country in 1917, and the transactions conducted by citizens within this
country were not considered to be enemy transactions. But in looking again at Section 2 of
the Act of March 9, 1933, (Exhibit 17), we can see that the phrase excluding wholly
domestic transactions has been removed from the amended version and replaced with "by
any person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

The people of the United States were now
subject to the power of the Trading with the Enemy Act of October 6,1917, as amended. For
the purposes of all commercial, monetary and, in effect, all business transactions, We,
the People became the same as the enemy, and were treated no differently. There was no
longer any distinction.

It is important here to note that, in the
Acts of October 6, 1917 and March 9, 1933, it states: "during times of war or during
any other national emergency declared by the President..". So we now see that the war
powers not only included a period of war, but also a period of "national
emergency" as defined by the President of the United States. When either of these two
situations occur, the President may, (Exhibit 17)

"through any agency that
he may designate, or otherwise, investigate, regulate or prohibit under such rules and
regulations as he may prescribe by means of
licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange, transfers of credit
between or payments by banking institutions as defined by the President and export,
hoarding, melting or earmarking of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency by any
person within the United States or anyplace subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

What can the President do now to the We, the
People, under this Section? He can do anything he wants to do. It's purely at his
discretion, and he can use any agency or any license that he desires to control it. This
is called a constitutional dictatorship.

"48 Stat. 1. The
exclusion of domestic transactions, formerly found in the Act, was deleted from Sect. 5
(b) at this time."

Our Congress wrote that in the year 1973.

Now let's find out about the Trading with
the Enemy Act of October 6, 1917. Quoting from a Supreme Court decision (Exhibit 21),
Stoehr v. Wallace, 1921:

"The Trading With the
Enemy Act, originally and as amended, is strictly a war measure, and finds its sanction in
the provision empowering Congress "to declare war, grant letters of marque and
reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water" Const. Art. 1, Sect.
8, c]. 11. P. 241".

Remember your Constitution? "Congress
shall have the power to declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal and make all
rules concerning the captures on the land and the water of the enemies." All rules.

If that be the case, let us look at the
memorandum of law that now covers trading with the enemy, the "Memorandum of American
Cases and Recent English Cases on The Law of Trading With the Enemy" (Exhibit 22),
remembering that we are now the same as the enemy. In this memorandum, we read:

"Every species of
intercourse with the enemy is illegal. This prohibition is not limited to mere commercial
intercourse."

This is the case of The Rapid (1814).

Additionally,

"No contract is considered as valid between
enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the courts of either
government, and they have, in the language of the civil law, no ability to sustain a
persona standi in judicio ".

In other words, they have no personal rights
at law in court. This is the case of The Julia (1813).

In the next case, the case of The Sally
(1814) (Exhibit 23), we read the words:

"By the general law of
prize, property engaged in an illegal intercourse with the enemy is deemed enemy property.
It is of no consequence whether it belong to an ally or to a citizen; the illegal traffic
stamps it with the hostile character, and attaches to it all the penal consequences of
enemy ownership".

Reading further in the memorandum, again
from the case of The Rapid:

"The law of prize is
part of the law of nations. In it, a hostile character is attached to trade, independently
of the character of the trader who pursues or directs it. Condemnation to the use of the
captor is equally the fate of the property of the belligerent and of the property found
engaged in anti-neutral trade. But a citizen or an ally may be engaged in a hostile trade,
and thereby involve his property in the fate of those in whose cause he embarks".

Again from the memorandum (Exhibit 24):

"The produce of the soil
of the hostile territory, as well as other property engaged in the commerce of the hostile
power, as the source of its wealth and strength, are always regarded as legitimate prize,
without regard to the domicile of the owner".

From the case (Exhibit 25) of The William
Bagaley (1866):

"In general, during war,
contracts with, or powers of attorney or agency from, the enemy executed after outbreak of
war are illegal and void; contracts entered into with the enemy prior to the war are
either suspended or are absolutely terminated; partnerships with an enemy are dissolved;
powers of attorney from the enemy, with certain exceptions, lapse; payments to the enemy
(except to agents in the United States appointed prior to the war and confirmed since the
war) are illegal and void; all rights of an enemy to sue in the courts are suspended."

From Senate Report No. 113 (Exhibit 26), in
which we find An Act to Define, Regulate, and Punish Trading with the Enemy, and For Other
Purposes, we read:

"The
trade or commerce regulated or prohibited is defined in Subsections (a), (b), (c), (d) and
(e), page 4. This trade covers almost every imaginable transaction, and is forbidden and
made unlawful except when allowed under the form of licenses issued by the Secretary of Commerce (p. 4, sec. 3,
line 18). This authorization of trading under licenses constitutes the principal modification of the rule
of international law forbidding trade between the citizens of belligerents, for the power
to grant such licenses, and therefore exemption from the operation of law, is given by the
bill."

It says no trade can be conducted or no
intercourse can be conducted without a license, because, by mere definition of the enemy,
and under the prize law, all intercourse is illegal.

That was the first case we looked at,
Exhibit 22, wasn't it? So once we were declared enemies, all intercourse became illegal
for us. The only way we could now do business or any type of legal intercourse was to
obtain permission from our government by means of a license. We are certainly required to
have a Social Security Card, which is a license to work, and a Drivers License, which
gives the government the ability to restrict travel; all business in which we engage
ourselves requires us to have a license, does it not?

Returning once again to the Memorandum of
Law: (Exhibit 27)

"But it is necessary
always to bear in mind that a war cannot be carried on without hurting somebody, even, at
times, our own citizens. The public good, however, must prevail over private gain. As we
said in Bishop U. Jones (28 Texas, 294), there cannot be "a war for arms and a peace
for commerce". One of the most important features of the bill is that which provides
for the temporary taking over of the enemy property,".

This point of law is important to keep in
mind, for it authorizes the temporary take-over of enemy property. The question is: Once
the war terminates, the property must be returned -- mustn't it?

The property that is confiscated, and the
belligerent right of the government during the period of war, must be returned when the
war terminates. Let us take the case of a ship in harbor; war breaks out, and the Admiral
says, "I'm seizing your ship." Can you stop him? No. But when the war is over,
the Admiral must return your ship to you. This point is important to bear in mind, for we
will return to, and expand upon, it later in the report.

"The ultimate ownership
of all property is in the State; individual so-called ,,ownership" is only by virtue
of government, i. e., law, amounting to mere user; and use must be in accordance with law
and subordinate to the necessities of the State."

Who owns all the property? Who owns the
property you call "yours"? Who has the authority to mortgage property? Let us
continue with a Supreme Court decision, (Exhibit 29) United States v. Russell:

"Private property, the
Constitution provides, shall not be taken for public use without just compensation
...."

That is the peacetime clause, isn't it?
Further (emphasis is ours),

"Extraordinary and
unforeseen occasions arise, however, beyond all doubt, in cases of extreme necessity in
time of war or of immediate and impending public danger, in which private property may be
impressed into the public service, or may be seized or appropriated to public use, or may
even be destroyed without the consent of the owner...."

This quote, and indeed this case, provides a
vivid illustration of the potential power of the government.

Now, let us return to the period of time
after March 4, 1 933, and take a close look at what really occurred. On March 4, 1933, in
his inaugural address, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt asked for the authority of the
war powers, and called a special session of Congress for the purpose of having those
powers conferred to him.

On March the 2nd, 1933, however, we find
that Herbert Hoover had written a letter to the Federal Reserve Board of New York, asking
them for recommendations for action based on the over-all situation at the time. The
Federal Reserve Board responded with a resolution (Exhibit 30) which they had adopted, an
excerpt from which follows:

"Resolution Adopted By
The Federal Reserve Board Of New York. Whereas, in the opinion of the Board of Directors
of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, the continued and increasing withdrawal of
currency and gold from the banks of the country has now created a national
emergency...."

In order to fully appreciate the
significance of this last quote, we must recall that, in 1913, The Federal Reserve Act was
passed, authorizing the creation of a central bank, the thought of which had already been
noted in the Constitution. The basic idea of the central bank was, among other things, for
it to act as a secure repository for the gold of the people. We, the People, would bring
our gold to the huge, strong vaults of the Federal Reserve, and we would be issued a note
which said, in effect, that, at any time we desired, we could bring that note back to the
bank and be given back our gold which we had deposited.

Until 1933, that agreement, that contract
between the Federal Reserve and its depositors, was honored. Federal Reserve.notes, prior
to 1933, were indeed redeemable in gold. After 1933, the situation changed drastically. In
1933, during the depths of the Depression, at the time when We, the People, were
struggling to stay alive and keep our families fed, the bankers began to say, "People
are coming in now, wanting their gold, wanting us to honor this contract we have made with
them to give them their gold on demand, and this contractual obligation is creating a
national emergency."

How could that happen? Reading from the
Public Papers of Herbert Hoover (Exhibit 31):

"Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that,
in this emergency, the Federal Reserve Board is hereby requested to urge the President of
the United States to declare a bank holiday, Saturday, March 4, and Monday, March 6...

In other words, President Roosevelt was
urged to close down the banking system and make it unavailable for a short period of time.
What was to happen during that period of time?

Reading again from the Federal Reserve Board
resolution (Exhibit 31), we find a proposal for an executive order, to be worded as
follows:

Whereas, it is provided in
Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended, that "the President may
investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as he may prescribe,
by means of licenses or otherwise, any transactions in foreign exchange and the export,
hoarding, melting, or earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency, *"

Now, in any nominal usage of the American
language, the standard accepted meaning of a series of three asterisks after a quotation
means that what follows also must be quoted exactly, doesn't it? If it's not, that's a
fraudulent use of the American language. At that point marked by the red asterisk (*)
above, "began, what did the original Act of October 6,1917, say?

Referring back to Exhibit 19, we find that
the remainder of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,1917 says:

"(other than credits
relating solely to transactions to be executed wholly within the United States)."

This portion of Section 5 (b) specifically
prohibited the government from taking control of We, the People's money and transactions,
didn't it?

However, let us now read the remainder of
Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as amended on March 9,1933 (Exhibit 17):

"by any person within
the United States or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof."

Comparing the original with the amended
version of Section 5 (b), we can see the full significance of the amended version, wherein
the exclusion of domestic transactions from the powers of the Act was deleted, and
"any person" became subject to the extraordinary powers conferred by the Act.
Further, we can now see that the usage of the original text where the red asterisk is
(above), it was, in all likelihood, meant to be deliberately misleading, if not fraudulent
in nature.

Further, in the next section of the Federal
Reserve Board's proposal, we find that anyone violating any provision of this Act will be
fined not more than $10,000.00, or imprisoned for not more than ten years, or both. A
severe enough penalty at any time, but one made all the more harsh by the economic
conditions in which most Americans found themselves at the time. And where were these
alterations and amendments to be found? Not from the government itself, initially; no,
they are first to be found in a proposal from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, a
banking institution.

Let us recall the chronology of events:
Herbert Hoover, in his last days as President of the

United States, asked for a recommendation
from the Federal Reserve Board of New York, and they responded with their proposals. We
see that President Hoover did not act on the recommendation, and believed the actions were
"neither justified nor necessary" (Appendix, Public Papers of Herbert Hoover, p.
1088) . Let us see what happened; remember on March 4, 1933, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was
inaugurated as President of the United States. On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt
called for an extraordinary session of Congress to be held on March 9, 1933, as can be
seen in Exhibit 32:

"Whereas, public
interests require that the Congress of the United States should be convened in extra
session at twelve o'clock, noon, on the Ninth day of March, 1933, to receive such
communication as may be made by the Executive."

On the next day, March 6 ,1933, President
Roosevelt issued Proclamation 2039, which has been included in this report, starting at
the bottom of Exhibit 32. In Exhibit 32, we find the following:

"Whereas there have been
heavy and unwarranted withdrawals of gold and currency from our banking institutions for
the purpose of hoarding"

Right at the beginning, we have a problem.
And the problem rests in the question of who should be the judge of whether or not my
gold, on deposit at the Federal Reserve, with which I have a contract which says, in
effect, that I may withdraw my gold at my discretion, is being withdrawn by me in an
"unwarranted" manner. Remember, the people of the United States were in dire
economic straits at this point. If I had gold at the Federal Reserve, I would consider
withdrawing as much of my gold as I needed for my family and myself a
"warranted" action. But the decision was not left up to We, the People.

It is also important to note that it is
stated that the gold is being withdrawn for the "purpose of hoarding". The
significance of this phrase becomes clearer when we reach Proclamation 2039, wherein the
term "hoarding" is inserted into the amended version of Section 5 (b). The term,
"hoarding", was not to be found in the original version of Section 5(b) of the
Act of October 6, 1917. It was a term which was used by President Roosevelt to help
support his contention that the United States was in the middle of a national emergency,
and his assertion that the extraordinary powers conferred to him by the War Powers Act
were needed to deal with that emergency.

Let us now go on to the middle of
Proclamation 2039, at the top of the next page, Exhibit 33. In reading from Exhibit 33, we
find the following:

"Whereas, it is provided
in Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended, " that
the President may investigate, regulate, or prohibit, under such rules and regulations as
be may prescribe, by means of licenses
or otherwise, any transaction in foreign exchange and the export, hoarding, melting, or
earmarkings of gold or silver coin or bullion or currency * * * "

exactly as was first proposed by the Federal
Reserve Board of New York (Exhibit 31).

If we return to 48 Statute 1 (Exhibit 17),
Title 1, Section 1, we find that the amended Section 5 (b) with its added phrase:

"by any person within the United States
or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof'.

Is this becoming clearer as to exactly what
happened? On March 5, 1933, President Roosevelt called for an extra session of Congress,
and on March 6, 1933, issued Proclamation 2039 (Exhibits 32-33). On March 9th, Roosevelt
issued Proclamation 2040. We looked at Proclamation 2039 on Exhibits 32 and 33, and now,
on Exhibit 33 (a), let's see what Roosevelt is talking about in Proclamation 2040:

"Whereas, on March 6,
1933, I, Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, by Proclamation
declared the existence of a national emergency and proclaimed a bank holiday..."

We see that Roosevelt declared a national
emergency and a bank holiday. Let's read on:

"Whereas, under the Act
of March 9, 1933, all Proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President
pursuant to the authority conferred by section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1 91 7, as
amended, are approved and confirmed;"

This section of the Proclamation clearly
states that all proclamations heretofore or hereafter issued by the President are approved
and confirmed, citing the authority of section 5 (b). The key words here being
"all" and "approved". Further:

"Whereas, said national
emergency still continues, and it is necessary to take further measures extending beyond
March 9, 1933, in order to accomplish such purposes"

We again clearly see that there is more to
come, evidenced by the phrase, "further measures extending beyond March 9, 1933 ...
" Could this be the beginning of a new deal? Possibly a one-sided deal. How long can
this type of action continue? Let's find out.

"Now, therefore, I,
Franklin D. Roosevelt, President of the United States of America, in view of such
continuing national emergency and by virtue of the authority vested in me by Section 5 (b)
of the Act of October 6, 1917 (40 Stat. L. 411) as amended by the Act of March 9, 1933, do
hereby proclaim, order, direct and declare that all the terms and provisions of said
Proclamation of March 6,1933, and the regulations and orders issued thereunder are hereby
continued in full force and effect until
further proclamation by the President."

We now understand that the Proclamation
2039, of March 6, 1933 and Proclamation 2040 of March 9, 1933, will continue until such
time as another proclamation is made by "the President". Note that the term
"the President" is not specific to President Roosevelt; it is a generic term
which can equally apply to any President from Roosevelt to the present, and beyond.

So here we have President Roosevelt
declaring a national emergency (we are now beginning to realize the full significance of
those words) and closing the national banks for two days, by Executive Order. Further, he
states that the Proclamations bringing about these actions will to continue "in full
force and effect" until such time as the President, and only the President, changes
the situation.

It is important to note the fact that these
Proclamations were made on March 6, 1933, three days before Congress was due to convene
its extra session. Yet references are made to such things as the amended Section 5 (b),
which had not yet even been confirmed by Congress. President Roosevelt must have been
supremely confident of Congress I confirmation of his actions. And indeed, we find that
confidence was *justified. For on March 9, 1933, without individual Congressmen even
having the opportunity to read for themselves the bill they were to confirm, Congress did
indeed approve the amendment of Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917.

Referring to the Public Papers of Herbert
Hoover (Exhibit 34):

"That those speculators
and insiders were right was plain enough later on. This first contract of the
'moneychangers with the New Deal netted those who removed their money from the country a
profit of up to 60 percent when the dollar was debased."

Where had our gold gone? Our gold had
already been moved offshore. The gold was not in the banks, and when We, the People lined
up at the door attempting to have our contracts honored, the deception was exposed. What
happened then? The laws were changed to prevent us from asking again, and the military was
brought in to protect the Federal Reserve. We, the People, were declared to be the same as
public enemy and placed under military authority.

Going now to another section of 48 Statute 1
(Exhibit 35):

"Whenever in the
judgment of the Secretary of the Treasury such action is necessary to protect the currency
system of the United States, the Secretary of the Treasury, in his discretion, may require
any or all individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations to pay and deliver to
the Treasurer of the United States any or all gold coin, gold bullion, and gold
certificates owned by such individuals, partnerships, associations and corporations."

By this Statute, everyone was required to
turn in their gold. Failure to do so would constitute a violation of this provision, such
violation to be punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000.00 and imprisonment for not
more than ten years. It was a seizure, Whose property may be seized without due process of
law under the Trading With the Enemy Act? The enemy's. Whose gold was seized? Ours -- the
gold of the people of the United States.

From the Roosevelt Papers (Exhibit 36):

"During this banking
holiday it was at first believed that some form of scrip or emergency currency would be
necessary for the conduct of ordinary business. We knew that it would be essential when
the banks reopened to have an adequate supply of currency to meet all possible demands of
depositors. Consideration was given by government officials and various local agencies to
the advisability of issuing clearing house certificates or some similar form of local
emergency currency. On March 7, 1933, the Secretary of the Treasury issued a regulation
authorizing clearing houses to issue demand certificates against sound assets of the
banking institutions, but this authority was not to become effective until March 10th. In
many cities, the printing of these certificates was actually begun, but after the passage
of the Emergency Banking Act of March 9, 1933 (48 Stat. 1), it became evident that they
would not be needed, because the Act made possible the issue of the necessary amount of
emergency currency in the form of Federal Reserve banknotes which could be based on any
sound assets owned by banks."

Roosevelt could now issue emergency currency
under the Act of March 9, 1933 and this currency was to be called Federal Reserve bank
notes. From Title 4 of the Act of March 9, 1933 (Exhibit 37):

"Upon the deposit with
the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct obligations of the United States or
(b) of any notes, drafts, bills of exchange, or bankers' acceptances acquired under the
provisions of this Act, any Federal reserve bank making such deposit in the manner
prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury shall be entitled to receive from the
Comptroller of the currency circulating notes in blank, duly registered and
countersigned."

What is this saying? It says (emphasis is
ours) : "Upon the deposit with the Treasurer of the United States, (a) of any direct
obligation of the United States ..." That is a direct obligation of the United
States? It's a treasury note, which is an obligation upon whom? Upon We, the People, to
perform. It's a taxpayer obligation, isn't it?

What's a note? If you go to the bank and
sign a note on your home, that's a note, isn't it? A note is a private obligation upon We,
the People. And if the Federal Reserve Bank deposits either (a) public and/or (b) private
obligation of We, the People, with the Treasury, the Comptroller of the currency will
issue this circulating note endorsed in blank, duly registered and countersigned, an
emergency currency based on the (a) public and/or (b) private obligations of the people of
the United States.

In the Congressional Record of March 9, 1933
(Exhibit 38) , we find evidence that our congressmen didn't even have individual copies of
the bill to read, on which they were about to vote. A copy of the bill was passed around
for approximately 40 minutes.

Congressman McFadden made the comment,

"Mr. Speaker, I regret that the
membership of the House has bad no opportunity to consider or even read this bill. The
first opportunity I had to know what this legislation is, was when it was read from the
clerk's desk. It is an important banking bill. It is a dictatorship over finance in the
United States. It is complete control over the banking system in the United States ... It
is difficult under the circumstances to discuss this bill. The first section of the bill,
as I grasped it, is practically the war powers that were given back in 1917."

Congressman McFadden later says,

"I would like to ask the
chairman of the committee if this is a plan to change the holding of the security back of
the Federal Reserve notes to the Treasury of the United States rather than the Federal
Reserve agent."

Keep in mind, here, that, prior to 1933, the
Federal Reserve bank held our gold as security, in return for Federal Reserve gold notes
which we could redeem at any time we wanted. Now, however, Congressman McFadden is asking
if this proposed bill is a plan to change who's going to hold the security, from the
Federal Reserve to the Treasury.

Chairman Steagall's response to Congressman
McFadden's question, again from the Congressional Record:

"This provision is for
the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes; and not for Federal Reserve notes; and the
security back of it is the obligations, notes, drafts, bills of exchange, bank
acceptances, outlined in the section to which the gentleman has referred."

We were backed by gold, and our gold was
seized, wasn't it? We were penniless, and now our money would be secured, not by gold, but
by notes and obligations on which We, the People, were the collateral security.

Congressman McFadden then questioned,

"Then the new
circulation is to be Federal Reserve bank notes and not Federal Reserve notes. Is that
true?

Mr. Steagall replied,

"Insofar as the
provisions of this section are concerned, yes."

Does that sound familiar?

Next we hear from Congressman Britten, as
noted in the Congressional Record (Exhibit 39):

"From my observations of
the bill as it was read to the House, it would appear that the amount of bank notes that
might be issued by the Federal Reserve System is not limited. That will depend entirely
upon the amount of collateral that is presented from time to time for exchange for bank
notes. Is that not correct?"

Who is the collateral? We are - we are
chattel, aren't we? We have no rights. Our rights were suspended along with the
Constitution. We became chattel property to the corporate government, our transactions and
obligations the collateral for the issuance of Federal Reserve bank notes.

Congressman Patman, speaking from the
Congressional Record (Exhibit 40):

"The money will be worth
100 cents on the dollar because it is backed by the credit of the Nation. It will represent a mortgage on all the homes and
other property of all the people in the Nation."

It now is no wonder that credit became so
available after the Depression. It was needed to back our monetary system. Our debts, our
obligations, our homes, our jobs - we were now slaves for the system.

From Statutes at Large, in the Congressional
Record (Exhibit 41)

"When required to do so
by the Secretary of the Treasury, each Federal Reserve agent shall act as agent of the
Treasurer of the United States or of the Comptroller of the currency, or both, for the
performance of any functions which the Treasurer or the Comptroller may be called upon to
perform in carrying out the provisions of this paragraph."

The Federal Reserve was taken over by the
Treasury. The Treasury holds the assets. We are the collateral -- ourselves and our
property.

To summarize briefly: On March 9,1933 the
American people in all their domestic, daily, and commercial transactions became the same
as the enemy. The President of the United States, through licenses or any other form, was
given the power to regulate and control the actions of enemies. He made We, the People,
chattel property; he seized our gold, our property and our rights; and he suspended the
Constitution. And we know that current law, to this day, says that all proclamations
issued heretofore or hereafter by the President or the Secretary of the Treasury are
approved and confirmed by Congress. Pretty broad, sweeping approval to be automatic,
wouldn't you agree?

On March 11, 1933, President Roosevelt, in
his first radio "Fireside Chat" (Exhibit 42), makes the following statement:

"The Secretary of the
Treasury will issue licenses to banks which are members of the Federal Reserve system,
whether national bank or state, located in each of the 12 Federal Reserve bank cities, to
open Monday morning."

It was by this action that the Treasury took
over the banking system.

Black's Law Dictionary defines the Bank
Holiday of 1933 (Exhibit 42a) in the following words:

"Presidential
Proclamations No. 2039, issued March 6, 1933, and No. 2040, issued March 9, 1933,
temporarily suspended banking transactions by member banks of the Federal Reserve System.
Normal banking functions were resumed on March 13, subject to certain restrictions. The
first proclamation, it was held, had no authority in law until the passage on March 9,
1933, of a ratifying act (12 U. S. C. A. Sect. 95b). Anthony v. Bank of Wiggins, 183 Miss.
883, 184 So. 626. The present law forbids member banks of the Federal Reserve System to
transact banking business, except under regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury,
during an emergency proclaimed by the President. 12 U.S.C.A. Sect. 95"

Take special note of the last sentence of
this definition, especially the phrase, "present law". The fact that banks are
under regulation of the Treasury today, is evidence that the state of emergency still
exists, by virtue of the definition. Not that, at this point, we need any more evidence to
prove we are still in a declared state of national emergency.

From the Agricultural Adjustment Act of May
12,1933 (Exhibit 43):

"To issue licenses
permitting processors, associations of producers and others to engage in the handling, in
the current of interstate or foreign commerce, of any agricultural commodity or product
thereof'

This is the seizure of the agricultural
industry by means of licensing authority.

In the first hundred days of the reign of
Franklin Delano Roosevelt, similar seizures by licensing authority were successfully
completed by the government over a plethora of other industries, among them
transportation, communications, public utilities, securities, oil, labor, and all natural
resources. The first hundred days of FDR saw the nationalization of the United States, its
people and its assets. What has Bill Clinton talked about during his campaign and early
presidency? His first hundred days.

Now, we know that they took over all
contracts, for we have already read in Exhibit 22:

"No contract is
considered as valid as between enemies, at least so far as to give them a remedy in the
courts of law of either government, and they have, in the language of civil law, no
ability to sustain a persona standi in judicio."

They have no personal rights at law.
Therefore, we should expect that we would see in the statutes a time when the contract
between the Federal Reserve and We, the People, in which the Federal Reserve had to give
us our gold on demand, was made null and void.

Referring to House Joint Resolution 192
(June 5, 1933) (Exhibit 44):

"That (a) every
provision contained in or made with respect to any obligation which purports to give the
obligee a right to require payment in gold or a particular kind of coin or currency, or in
an amount of money of the United States measured thereby is declared to be against public
policy; and no such policy shall be contained in or made with respect to any obligation
hereafter incurred."

Indeed, our contract with the Federal
Reserve was invalidated at the end of Roosevelt's hundred days. We lost our right to
require our gold back from the bank in which we had deposited it.

Returning once again to the Roosevelt Papers
(Exhibit 45):

"This conference of
fifty farm leaders met on March 10, 1933. They agreed on recommendations for a bill, which
were presented to me at the White House on March 11th by a committee of the conference,
who requested me to call upon the Congress for the same broad powers to meet the emergency
in agriculture as I had requested for solving the bank crisis."

What was the "broad powers"? That
was the War Powers, wasn't it? And now we see the farm leaders asking President Roosevelt
to use the same War Powers to take control of the agricultural industry. Well, needless to
say, he did. We should wonder about all that took place at this conference, for it to
result in the eventual acquiescence of farm leadership to the governmental take-over of
their livelihoods.

Reading from the Agricultural Adjustment
Act, May the 12th, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 46):

"That the present acute
economic emergency being in part the consequence of a severe and increasing disparity
between the prices of agriculture and other commodities, which disparity has largely
destroyed the purchasing power of farmers for industrial products, has broken down the
orderly exchange of commodities, and bas seriously impaired the agricultural assets
supporting the national credit structure, it is hereby declared that these conditions in
the basic industry of agriculture have affected transactions in agricultural commodities
with a national public interest, have burdened and obstructed the normal currents of
commerce in such commodities and rendered imperative the immediate enactment of 'Bile 1 of
this Act."

Now here we see that he is saying that the
agricultural assets support the national credit structure. Did he take the titles of all
the land? Remember Contracts Payable in Gold? President Roosevelt needed the support, and
agriculture was critical, because of all the millions of acres of farmland at that time,
and the value of that farmland. The mortgage on that farmland was what supported the
emergency credit. So President Roosevelt had to do something to stabilize the price of
land and Federal Reserve Bank notes to create money, didn't he? So he impressed
agriculture into the public interest. The farming industry was nationalized. Continuing
with the Agricultural Adjustment Act, Declaration of Emergency (Exhibit 47):

"It is hereby declared
to be the public policy of Congress..."

Referring now back to Prize Cases (1862) (2
Black, 674) (Exhibit 24):

"But in defining the
meaning of the term 'enemies' property,' we will be led into error if we refer to Fleta or
Lord Coke for their definition of the word, 'enemy'. It is a technical phrase peculiar to
prize courts, and depends upon principles of public policy as distinguished from the
common law."

Once the emergency is declared, the common
law is abolished, the Constitution is abolished and we fall under the absolute will of
Government, public policy.

All the government needs to continue is to
have public opinion on their side. If public opinion can be kept, in sufficient degree, on
the side of the government, statutes, laws and bigs can continue to be passed. The
Constitution has no meaning. The Constitution is suspended. It has been for 60 years.
We're not under law. Law has been abolished.

We're under a system of public policy, (War
Powers).

So when you go into that courtroom with your
Constitution and the common law in your hand, what does that judge tell you? He tells you
that you have no persona standi in judicio. You have no personal standing at law. He tells
you not to bother bringing the Constitution into his court, because it is not a
Constitutional court, but an executive tribunal operating under a totally different
jurisdiction.

From Section 93-549 (Exhibit 48) (emphasis
is ours):

"Under this procedure we
retain Government by law - special, temporary law, perhaps, but law nonetheless. The
public may know the extent and the limitations of the powers that can be asserted, and the
persons affected may be informed by the statute of their rights and their duties."

If you have any rights, the only reason you
have them is because they have been statutorily declared, and your duties well spelled
out, and if you violate the orders of those statutes, you will be charged, not with a
crime, but with an offense.

Again from 93-549, from the words of Mr.
Katzenbach (Exhibit 49):

"My recollection is that
almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost
always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so
broad, it would justify almost anything."

Speaking on the subject of a challenge to
the Act by the people, Justice Clark then says,

"Most difficult from a
standpoint of standing to sue. The Court, you might say, has enlarged the standing rule in
favor of the litigant. But I don't think it has reached the point, presently, that would
permit many such cases to be litigated to the merits."

Senator Church then made the comment:

"What you're saying,
then, is that if Congress doesn't act to standardize, restrict, or eliminate the emergency
powers, that no one else is very likely to get a standing in court to contest."

No persona standi n judicio - no personal
standing in the courts.

Continuing with Senate Report 93-549
(Exhibit 50):

"The interesting aspect
of the legislation lies in the fact that it created a permanent agency designed to
eradicate an emergency condition in the sphere of agriculture."

These agencies, of which there are now
thousands, and which now control every aspect of our lives, were ostensibly created as
temporary agencies meant to last only as long as the national emergency. They have become,
in fact, permanent agencies, as has the state of national emergency itself. As Franklin
Delano Roosevelt said: "We will never go back to the old order." That quote
takes on a different meaning in light of what we have seen so far.

In Exhibit 51, Senate Report 93-549, we find
a quote from Senator Church:

"If the President can
create crimes by flat and without congressional approval, our system is not much different from that of the
Communists, which allegedly threatens our existence."

We see on this same document, at the bottom
right-hand side of the page, as a Title, the words,

"Enormous Scope of
Powers...A "Time Bomb".

Remember, this is Congress' own document,
from the year 1973.

Most people might not look to agriculture to
provide them with this type of information. But let us look at Title III of the
Agricultural Adjustment Act, which is also called the Emergency Farm Mortgage Act of 1933
(Exhibit 52):

"Title III -- Financing
-- And Exercising Power Conferred by Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution: To Coin
Money And To Regulate the Value Thereof."

From Section 43 of Exhibit 52:

"Whenever the President
finds upon investigation that the foreign commerce of the United States is adversely
affected ... and an expansion of credit is necessary to secure by international agreement
a stabilization at proper levels of the currencies of various governments, the President
is authorized, in his discretion... To direct the Secretary of the Treasury to enter into
agreements with the several Federal Reserve banks..."

Remember that in the Constitution it states
that Congress has the authority to coin all money and regulate the value thereof. How can
it be then that the Executive branch is issuing an emergency currency, and quoting the
Constitution as its authority to do so?

Under Section 1 of the same Act (Exhibit 53)
we find the following:

"To direct the Secretary
of the Treasury to cause to be issued in such amount or amounts as he may from time to
time order, United States notes, as provided in the Act entitled "An Act to authorize
the issue of United States notes and for the redemption of funding thereof and for funding
the floating debt of the United States, approved February 25, 1862, and Acts supplementary
thereto and amendatory thereof"

What is the Act of February 25, 1862? It is
the Greenback Act of President Abraham Lincoln. Let us remember that, when Abraham Lincoln
was elected and inaugurated, he didn't even have a Congress for the first six weeks. He
did not, however, call an extra session of Congress. He issued money, he declared war, he
suspended habeas corpus, it was an absolute Constitutional dictatorship. There was not
even a Congress in session for six weeks.

When Lincoln's Congress came into session
six weeks later, they entered the following statement into the Congressional record:
"The actions, rules, regulations, licenses, heretofore or hereafter taken, are hereby
approved and confirmed..." This is the exact language of March 9,1933 and Title 12,
USC, Section 95 (b), today.

We now come to the question of how to
terminate these extraordinary powers granted under a declaration of national emergency. We
have learned that, in order for the extraordinary powers to be terminated, the national
emergency itself must be cancelled. Reading from the Agricultural Act, Section 13 (Exhibit
54):

"This title shall cease
to be in effect whenever the President finds and proclaims that the national economic
emergency in relation to agriculture has been ended."

Whenever the President finds by proclamation
that the proclamation issued on March 6, 1933 has terminated, it has to terminate through
presidential proclamation just as it came into effect. Congress had already delegated all
of that authority, and therefore was in no position to take it back.

In Senate Report 93-549, we find the
following statement from Congress (Exhibit 55):

"Furthermore, it would
be largely futile task unless we have the President's active collaboration. Having
delegated this authority to the President -- in ways that permit him to determine how long
it shall continue, simply through the device of keeping emergency declarations alive -- we
now find ourselves in a position where we cannot reclaim the power without the President's
acquiescence. We are unable to terminate these declarations without the President's
signature, so we need a large measure of Presidential cooperation".

It appears that no President has been
willing to give up this extraordinary power, and, if they will not sign the termination
proclamation, the access to, and usage of, extraordinary powers does not terminate. At
least, it has not terminated for over 60 years.

Now, that's no definite indication that a
President from Bill Clinton on might not eventually sign the termination proclamation, but
60 years of experience would lead one to doubt that day will ever come by itself. But the
question now to ask is this: How many times have We, the People, asked the President to
terminate his access to extraordinary powers, or the situation on which it is based, the
declared national emergency? Who has ever demanded that this be done? How many of us even
knew that it had been done? And, without the knowledge contained in this report, how long
do you think the blindness of the American public to this situation would have continued,
and with it, the abolishment of the Constitution? But we're not quite as in the dark as we
were, are we?

In Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 56), we
find the following statement from Senator Church:

"These powers, if
exercised, would confer upon the President total authority to do anything he
pleased."

"Like a loaded gun laying around the
house, the plethora of delegated authority and institutions to meet almost every kind of
conceivable crisis stand ready for use for purposes other than their original intention
... Machiavelli, in his "Discourses of Livy," acknowledged that great power may
have to be given to the Executive if the State is to survive, but warned of great dangers
in doing so. He cautioned: Nor is it sufficient if this power be conferred upon good men;
for men are frail, and easily corrupted, and then in a short time, he that is absolute may
easily corrupt the people."

Now, a quote from an exclusive reply
(Exhibit 58) written May 21, 1973, by the Attorney General of the United States regarding
studies undertaken by the Justice Department on the question of the termination of the
standing national emergency:

"As a consequence, a
"national emergency" is now a practical necessity in order to carry out what has
the regular and normal method of governmental actions. What were intended by Congress as
delegations of power to be used only in the most extreme situations, and for the most
limited durations, have become everyday powers, and a state of "emergency" has
become a permanent condition."

From United States v. Butler (Supreme Court,
1935) (Exhibit 59):

"A tax, in the general
understanding and in the strict Constitutional sense, is an exaction for the support of
government; the term does not connote the expropriation of money from one group to be
expended for another, as a necessary means in a plan of regulation, such as the plan for
regulating agricultural production set up in the Agricultural Adjustment Act."

What is being said here is that a tax can
all be an exaction for the support of government, not for an expropriation from one group
for the use of another. That would be socialism, wouldn't it?

Quoting further from United States u. Butler
(Exhibit 60):

"The regulation of
farmer's activities under the statute, though in form subject to his own will, is in fact
coercion through economic pressure; his right of choice is illusory. Even if a fanner's
consent were purely voluntary, the Act would stand no better. At best it is a scheme for
purchasing with federal funds submission to federal regulation of a subject reserved to
the states."

Speaking of contracts, those contracts are
coercion contracts. They are adhesion contracts made by a superior over an inferior. They
are under the belligerent capacity of government over enemies. They are not valid
contracts.

Again from United States v. Butler (Exhibit
61):

"If the novel view of
the General Welfare Clause now advanced in support of the tax were accepted, this clause
would not only enable Congress to supplant the states in the regulation of agriculture and
all other industries as well, but would furnish the means whereby all of the other
provisions of the Constitution, sedulously framed to define and limit the powers of the
United States and preserve the powers of the states, could be broken down, the
independence of the individual states obliterated, and the United States converted into a
central government exercising uncontrolled police power throughout the union superseding
all local control over local concerns."

Please, read the above paragraph again. The
understanding of its meaning is vital.

The United States Supreme Court ruled the
New Deal, the nationalization, unconstitutional in the Agricultural Adjustment Act and
they turned it down flat. The Supreme Court declared it to be unconstitutional. They said,
in effect, "You're turning the federal government into an uncontrolled police state,
exercising uncontrolled police power." What did Roosevelt do next? He stacked the
Supreme Court, didn't he? And in 1937, United States v. Butler was overturned.

"The existence of war
and the restoration of peace are to be determined by the political department of the
government, and such determination is binding and conclusive upon the courts, and deprives
the courts of the power of hearing proof and determining as a question of fact either that
war exists or has ceased to exist."

The courts will tell you that is a political
question, for they (the courts) do not have jurisdiction over the common law.

The courts were deprived of the
Constitution. They were deprived of the common law. There are now courts of prize over the
enemies, and we have no persona standi in judicio. We have no personal standing under the
law. Also from the 65th Congress, under the section entitled Constitutional Sources of
Laws of War, we find (Exhibit 63):

"When the sovereign
authority shall choose to bring it into operation, the judicial department must give
effect to its will. But until that will shall be expressed, no power of condemnation can
exist in the court."

From Senate Report 93-549 (Exhibit 64):

"Just how effective a
limitation on crisis action this makes of the court is hard to say. In light of the recent
war, the court today would seem to be a fairly harmless observer of the emergency
activities of the President and Congress. It is highly unlikely that the separation of
powers and the 10th Amendment will be called upon again to hamstring the efforts of the
government to deal resolutely with a serious national emergency."

So much for our Constitutional system of
checks and balances. And from that same Senate Report, in the section entitled,
"Emergency Administration", a continuation of Exhibit 64:

"Organizationally, in
dealing with the depression, it was Roosevelt's general policy to assign new, emergency
functions to newly created agencies, rather than to already existing departments."

Thus, thousands of "temporary"
emergency agencies are now sitting out there with emergency functions to rule us in all
cases whatsoever.

Finally, let us look briefly at the courts,
specifically with regard to the question of "booty". The following definition of
the term, "prize" is to be found in Bouvier's Law Dictionary (Exhibit 65):

"Goods taken on land
from a public enemy are called booty; and the distinction between a prize and booty
consists in this, that the former is taken at sea and the latter on land."

This significance of the distinction between
these two terms is critical, a fact which will become quite clear shortly.

Let us now remember that "Congress
shall have the power to make rules on all captures on the land and the water." To
reiterate, captures on the land are booty, and captures on the water are prize.

Now, the Constitution says that Congress
shall have the power to provide and maintain a navy, even during peacetime. It also says
that Congress shall have the power to raise and support an army, but no appropriations of
money for that purpose shall be for greater than two years. Here we can see that an army
is not a permanent standing body, because, in times of peace, armies were held by the
sovereign states as militia. So the United States had a navy during peacetime, but no
standing army; we had instead the individual state militias.

Consequently, the federal government had a
standing prize court, due to the fact that it had a standing navy, whether in times of
peace or war. But in times of peace, there could be no federal police power over the
continental United States, because there was to be no army.

From the report "The Law of Civil
Government in Territory Subject to Military Occupation by Military Forces of the United
States", published by order of the Secretary of War in 1902, under the heading
entitled The Confiscation of Private Property of Enemies in War (Exhibit 66), comes the
following quote:

"4. Should the President
desire to utilize the services of the Federal courts of the United States in promoting
this purpose or military undertaking, since these courts derive their jurisdiction from
Congress and do not constitute a part of the military establishment, they must secure from
Congress the necessary action to confer such jurisdiction upon said courts."

This means that, if the government is going
to confiscate property within the continental United States on the land (booty), it must
obtain statutory authority.

In this same section (Exhibit 66), we find
the following words:

"5. The laws and usages
of war make a distinction between enemies' property captured on the sea and property
captured on land. The jurisdiction of the courts of the United States over property
captured at sea is held not to attach to property captured on land in the absence of
Congressional action."

There is no standing prize court over the
land. Once war is declared, Congress must give jurisdiction to particular courts over
captures on the land by positive Congressional action. To continue with (Exhibit 66):

"The right of confiscation is a
sovereign right. In times of peace, the exercise of this right is limited and controlled
by the domestic Constitution and institutions of the government. In times of war, when the
right is exercised against enemies' property as a war measure, such right becomes a
belligerent right, and as such is not subject to the restrictions imposed by domestic
institutions, but is regulated and controlled by the laws and usages of war."

So we see that our government can operate in
two capacities: (a) in its sovereign peacetime capacity, with the limitations placed upon
it by the Constitution and restrictions placed upon it by We, the People, or (b) in a
wartime capacity, where it may operate in its belligerent capacity governed not by the
Constitution, but only by the laws of war.

In Section 1 7 of the Act of October 6, 1 91
7, the Trading With the Enemy Act (Exhibit 67):

"That the district courts of the
United States are hereby given jurisdiction to make and enter all such rules as to notice
and otherwise; and all such orders and decrees; and to issue such process as may be
necessary and proper in the premises to enforce the provisions of this Act."

Here we have Congress conferring upon the
district courts of the United States the booty jurisdiction, the jurisdiction over enemy
property within the continental United States. And at the time of the original, unamended,
Trading with the Enemy Act, we were indeed at war, a World war, and so booty jurisdiction
over enemies' property in the courts was appropriate. At that time, remember, we were not
yet declared the enemy. We were excluded from the provisions of the original Act.

In 1934 Congress passed an Act merging
equity and law abolishing common law. This Act, known as the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedures Act, was not to come into effect until 6 months after the letter of transmittal
from the Supreme Court to Congress. The Supreme Court refused transmittal and the
transmittal did not occur until Franklin D. Roosevelt stacked the Supreme Court in 1938
(Exhibits 67(a) and (b)).

But
on March the 9th of 1933, the American people were declared to be the public enemy under
the amended version of the Trading With the Enemy Act. What jurisdiction were We, the
People, then placed under? We were now the booty jurisdiction given to the district courts
by Congress. It was no longer be necessary , or of any value at all, to bring the
Constitution of the United States with us upon entering a courtroom, for that court was no
longer a court of common law, but a tribunal under wartime booty jurisdiction. Take a look
at the American flag in most American courtrooms. The gold fringe around our flag
designates Admiralty jurisdiction.

"Continuing the
Regulation of Exports; By virtue of the authority vested in the President by the
Constitution and statutes of the United States, including Section 5 (b) of the Act of
October 6, 1917, as amended (12 U.S.C. 95a), and in view of the continued existence of the
national emergencies..."

Later, in the same Executive Order (Exhibit
69), we find the following:

under the authority vested in
me as President of the United States by ection 5 (b) of the Act of October 6, 1917, as
amended (12 U. S. C. 95a)

Section 5 (b) certainly seems to be an
oft-cited support for Presidential authority, doesn't it? Surely the reason for this can
be found by referring back to Exhibit 49, the words of Mr. Katzenbach in Senate Report
93-549:

"My recollection is that
almost every executive order ever issued straddles on several grounds, but it almost
always includes the Trading With the Enemy Act because the language of that act is so
broad, it would justify almost anything."

The question here, and it should be a
question of grave concern to every Amen*can, is what type of acts can "almost
anything" cover? What has been, and is being, done, by our government under the cloak
of authority conferred by Section 5 (b) ? By now, I think we are beginning to know.

Has the termination of the national
emergency ever been considered? In Public Law 94412, September 14, 1976 (Exhibit 70), we
find that Congress had finally finished their exhaustive study on the national
emergencies, and the words of their findings were that they would terminate the existing
national emergencies. We should be able to heave a sigh of relief at this decision, for
with the termination of the national emergencies will come the corresponding termination
of extraordinary Presidential power, won't it? But yet we have learned two difficult
lessons: that we are still in the national emergency, and that power, once grasped, is
difficult to let go. And so now it should come as no surprise when we read, in the last
section of the Act, Section 502 (Exhibit 71), the following words:

"(a): The provisions of
this Act shall not apply to the following provisions of law, the powers and authorities
conferred thereby and actions taken thereunder (1) Section 5 (b) of the Act of October 6,
1917, as amended (1 2 U. S. C. 95a; 50 U. S. C. App. 5b)"

The bleak reality is, the situation has not
changed at all.

The alarming situation in which We, the
People, find ourselves today causes us to think back to a time over two hundred years ago
in our nation's history when our forefathers were also laboring under the burden of
governmental usurpation of individual rights. Their response, written in 1774, two years
before the signing of the Declaration of Independence, to the attempts of Great Britain to
retain extraordinary powers it had held during a time of war became known as the
"Declaration of Rights" (Exhibit 72) . And in that document, we find these
words:

"Whereas, since the
close of the last war, the British Parliament, claiming a power of right to bind the
people of America, by statute, in all cases whatsoever, hath in some acts expressly
imposed taxes on them. and in others, under various pretenses, but in fact for the purpose
of raising a revenue, hath imposed rates and duties payable in these colonies established
a board of commissioners, with unconstitutional powers, and extended the jurisdiction of
the courts of admiralty, not only for collecting the said duties, but for the trial of
causes merely arising within the body of a county."

We can see now that we have come full circle
to the situation which existed in 1774, but with one crucial difference. In 1774,
Americans were protesting against a colonial power which sought to bind and control its
colony by wartime powers in a time of peace. In 1994, it is our own government which has
sought, successfully to date, to bind its own people by the same subtle, insidious method.

Article 3, Section 3, of our Constitution
states:

"Treason against the
United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their
Enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No Person shall be convicted of treason unless on
the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open
Court."

Is the Act of March 9, 1933, treason? That
would be for the common law courts to decide. At this point in our nation's history, the
point is moot, for common law, and indeed the Constitution itself, do not operate or exist
at present. Whether governmental acts of theft of the nation's money, the citizens'
property, and American liberty as an ideal and a reality which have occurred since 1933 is
treason against the people of the United States, as the term is defined by the
Constitution of the United States cannot even be determined or argued in the legal sense
until the Constitution itself is re-established. For our part, however, we firmly believe
that, "by their fruits ye shall know them", and on that authority we rest our
case.

CONCLUSION

As you have just witnessed, the United
States of America continues to exist in a governmentally ordained state of national
emergency. Under such a state of emergency, our Constitution has been set aside,
ostensibly for the public good, until the emergency is cancelled.

But, as experience painfully shows, it has
not been to the public's good that our government has used its unrestricted power,
unhampered by the Constitution's restraining force. The governmental edicts and actions
over the past six decades have led us to the desperate state in which we find ourselves
today. Besieged on every side, corroding from within, frightened and in despair, we as a
nation are being torn asunder.

There IS a national emergency today - one of
life and death proportions - but it is NOT the emergency used by our government to
continue its abuse of power. It IS this very abuse, this unbridled rape of the American
spirit, that is the crux of the emergency we are in today. But this true emergency cannot
be cured by setting aside the Constitution; no, it can only be controlled by returning to
the laws of God and Country which have been stolen from us by those in whom we placed our
trust to protect the national interest.

We are a nation whose government is based
upon those immortal words, "a government of the people, by the people, for the
people". One has only to walk down the highways and byways of this great land to know
all too well that this is not a government of the people or for the people. Actions speak
louder than words, and the actions taken over the past decades have resulted in an
unparalleled decline of American economic and political power, and a weakening of American
values and spirit.

This is NOT a crisis in which the taking up
of arms is the answer. No, this is a situation in which we firmly believe that the pen
will be mightier than the sword. That a state of emergency exists cannot be disputed. That
the emergency is one which should concern every American alive cannot be denied. That we
must stand together, laying aside our individual differences, to fight the common foe, is
of vital importance, for the time to act is now. But this is not a battle of swords, but
of knowledge, for only when the deception is exposed to the light of day can the healing
process begin.

Truth stands tall in the light of day, and
it is the truth we bring to you today. l,et it be known and understood that it is our
intention to make this information available to every concerned American who desires to
know the true State of the Union. This is an undertaking of immense proportions, but we
have dedicated ourselves to bringing this information to the light of day, and with the
help of "We, the People", we will be successful in our efforts.

Every American who is thankful for the
opportunity to call themselves American must also accept the responsibility that comes
with that title. We the People have not only a right, but a responsibility to each other
and to those who have gone before us to learn what our government is doing, and to judge
whether actions taken benefit the people who will bear the costs. We have been in the dark
long enough, content to rest on our past glories and let the government take its course.
In a way, we have been like children, trusting in our parents to act in our best interest.
But as we have too frequently seen in the nightly news, not all parents have their
children's best interest at heart.

The time has come for us to take off our
blinders and accept reality, for the time of national reckoning has arrived. The majority
of our elected and appointed officials are no more responsible for the current state of
affairs than are we. The strings are being manipulated at far higher levels than the
positions most officials occupy. They are working with little knowledge or authority,
trying to control problems far bigger than even they realize. Their programs and actions
may seek to cure the symptoms, but the time has now come to attack the disease. They are
no more guilty than we are, nor will they be any more protected when the nation collapses
on us all.

If we blame them for this national
emergency, we must also truly blame ourselves, for it is "We, the People" to
whom this nation was given and whose duty it was to keep a watchful eye on those who
direct the sails of the ship of state. We have, however, fallen asleep, and while we were
dreaming the American dream, a band of pirates stole the Constitution and put our people
into slavery.

And since that terrible day when our
Constitution was cast aside, not one President or Congress, nor one Supreme Court justice
has been able or willing to return it to its rightful owners. Given the current state of
the union, there is no reason to expect this situation to change unless we ourselves cause
it to be so.

Let us put the childish emotions of pity and
self-deception away, stand up, stand together and fight back. Now is the time to stop
dreaming, and start the long work before us. Now is the time to turn back to the
principles and ideals on which this nation was founded, the strong foundation from which
our national identity springs.

When does tolerance become anarchy? When
does protection become slavery? When is enough enough? Now is when here and now.

Now is the time to return to the laws set
forth by God, and throw off these chains of ignorance and bondage which grip our nation to
the point of death. Let us return to the source, the standard of excellence set for us
long ago. Our message to Congress and all elected and appointed officials must be,
"Let my people go!", for we are all laboring under a system which will
eventually crush us, regardless of our religion, our sex, or the color of our skin.

We must let those at all levels of
governmental authority know that we have learned of the deception which lies at the core
of our national malaise. We must tell them in no uncertain terms that we will tolerate
this great lie no longer, and we must put them on notice that we expect them to resign if
they have not the courage and the resolve to help this nation in its hour of need.

We have been fools long enough. Beginning
April 1st, 1994, no matter how long after that date you see this report, start each and
every week without fail to give a copy of this information to at least one person you
know. We also ask you to write a letter to Congress telling them to "Let our People
go", or you can use the form letter you will find enclosed in the report.

We must let our elected officials know that
we expect them as servants of the people to help us re-establish law and order and restore
our national pride. They must repeal Proclamation 2039, 2040, and the 12 USC 95(a) and
95(b), thereby cancelling the National Emergency, and re-establish the Constitution of
this nation.

Now is the time for excellence of action. We
demand it and will accept nothing less. This is our country, to protect and defend, no
matter the cost. To do nothing out of fear or apathy is exactly what those in power are
hoping for, for it is ignorance and apathy that the darkness likes best. We must not be a
party to the darkness enveloping our nation any longer. We must come into the light, and
give our every drop of blood, sweat and tears to bring our nation back with us.

We must acknowledge that if we do nothing,
if we are not willing to act now and act boldly, without fear but with faith and a firm
resolve, our freedom to act at all may soon be taken away altogether. New bills, new laws
are being presented daily which will effectively serve to tighten the chains of bondage
already encircling this nation.

My friends, we are not going into slavery we
are already there. Make no mistake those in power are already tightening the chains, but
they are doing so slowly, quietly and with great caution, for fear of awakening the
slumbering lion which is the voice of the American people. There is yet still time for us
to slip loose the chains which bind us, and for us to bring about the restoration of this
nation.

If we act, if we make our concerns known and
shout out our refusal to accept the future which has been planned for us by those who hold
no allegiance to this great land of ours, we can yet demand and see come to pass the day
when the state of emergency is cancelled and the Constitution is restored to her rightful
place as the watchdog of those for whom absolute power corrupts absolutely. If we repent
of our ignorance and our apathy, and return to the God-given laws on which this nation was
founded, we may yet be free.

We will continue to hold meetings and offer
this information until everyone in America has had an opportunity to hear it and we have
set our nation free. We will not tolerate less. We are Americans and that means far more
than most of us realize.

If at first it seems you are working alone,
do not give up, for as this information spreads across the land to the great cities and
small towns, you will find yourself in excellent company. You already are as only one, for
behind you stand all the heroes of our history who fought and died to keep this nation
free.

Again, we must stress that we are not asking
you to pick up guns; in fact, we implore you not to, no matter how angry the news of this
deception has made you. Turn your anger into a steely resolve, a fierce determination not
to give up until the battle has been won. We are not asking you for lots of money; that's
their game, the "almighty dollar". It is the substitution of wealth and
possessions for integrity and honor that helped get us into this true state of emergency
in which we find ourselves now. We are not asking you for more time than you can give,
although we do ask you to give what time you can to get this information out.

What we ask from you is your commitment to
stand with those around you to help us restore this nation to her rightful place in
history, both that written and that yet to be told. Abraham Lincoln once said, "We
the People are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts not to overthrow the
Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution". We must stand
together now in this, our national hour of need. As the United States Supreme Court once
said, "It is not the function of our government to keep the citizen from falling into
error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into
error".

Each individual, their attitudes and
actions, forges their own special link in the great chain of history. Now is the time to
add to that precious inheritance of honor and duty which has kept America alive, because
the choices we make and the actions we take today are a part of history too - history not
yet written.

The vision for America has not died; the
"land of the free and the home of the brave" still exists. There is still time
to turn the tide for this great land, but we must join together to make it happen. We have
a debt of honor to the past and the future, a call to glory to rescue our homeland from
the hands of those who would see her fall.We cannot, we must not fail.